LOL...thx nolimitfriend.

Tony_P: I think I've addressed turboprops a few times itt and I don't want to repeat myself too much (something I find myself doing more and more with age). The engine on the turboprop is essentially a jet engine that's turning a prop for propulsion. It's much more fuel efficient for the type of flying (low altitude and short flights), but the engine is just as reliable as the jet engine. Don't let the visible prop scare you.

This approach chart is for both ILS (precision approach) and LOC (non-precision approach). That 2100' only applies to the LOC (localizer) approach. In all probability, the 747 was flying the ILS. I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've flown a LOC approach in the past 3 years. In every case, it was because the glideslope was out of service.

When flying the ILS, the plane would be vectored by the controller at whatever vectoring altitude is permitted and would then capture the glideslope and ride it down without any level-off. (I'm assuming they have radar at Auckland, being a major city in NZ. On the other hand, in a country where sheep outnumber people...)

If radar was unavailable (i.e. no controller to vector the plane to final approach), there are a couple of ways the pilot could fly this approach: flying the 13 nm DME arc from either north of the field (at 2800') or south of the field (at 2500') and intercepting the localizer that way, or flying outbound from the Auckland VOR on the 231° radial to LENGU at 3000', then making a procedure turn inbound and intercepting the localizer. From my interpretation of this approach plate, the pilot could elect to intercept the glideslope at 3000' or descend to 2100' and intercept it there. I think most pilots would elect to simply intercept the glideslope and ride it down.

w0x0f,

the neighborhood i live in (BeHi represent!) is under the approach for runway 16L/C/R at SEA. this question came up on the neighborhood mailing list today. what's your take?

my best guess is this reply from another neighbor:

i feel like you covered a similar topic previously itt but if you did i couldn't find it.

are you referring to the blue ice thing?

maybe that's what i'm remembering. clearly that's not what's happening to my neighbor since blue ice would be, well, blue.

Made it through about half of the thread, and thank you...it's awesome.

Brag: When I was high school age...I got to play in one of those huge 757 simulators at AA near DFW because a friend's relative worked for pilot training and wanted us to have fun.... I had a tail strike because I pulled up too fast and hard. I don't think I was able to land very well either. The experience was amazing, nonetheless, and the ability for the simulator to bring up the topography and buildings of different airports was astonishing, as was the sensation of movement.

Beat: I'll never have the balls to take flight lessons, though I think I would greatly enjoy it

Will delta throw you this kind of party after your last flight?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqeWT...eature=related


"MD-11 CAPTAIN RECEPTION AFTER LAST FLIGHT !"

Ok, will go back and find some turboprop info. I guess my concern is not the planes themselves, but the fact that they are usually run by less experienced pilots. I always think of this flight when I think about turboprops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407

Yeah, I can understand this concern. As with so many things in life, we can't be sure who we're dealing with. I think of this whenever I go to a doctor or dentist...did this guy graduate with honors or just barely squeak by? Of course, I realize that there are more immediate concerns with a pilot.

Your best bet for peace of mind is to try to meet the pilots before the flight so you can get your own read on them.

Thanks W0X0F. How does one go about meeting the pilots? Just go up and ask during/before boarding. How have passengers initiated a conversation with you in the past?

I've had people approach me in the gate area or during the boarding process (if I'm wandering around the cabin). On several occasions, we've just had passengers stick their head in the cockpit during boarding. I think in most cases they have asked the flight attendant first, but unless you're trying to barge your way in you won't have much problem. If the flight's running late your request to visit the cockpit might be denied, but we'll usually take a few minutes to answer any questions you have. Of course, each airline has its own culture and rules but pilots are, in general, happy to talk about their job (Exhibit A: this thread).

This thread alone has really helped me with my fear of flying. Thanks!

I flew ski-equipped C-130's in Antarctica and they would occur on the skiway at the south pole when temps were very cold. When I say very cold I mean in the -70 to -75 degree range. Intentionally left out F or C because it didn't matter.

Pretty cool. I imagine at temps that low, the moisture in the exhaust would crystallize almost instantly. Part of my point about contrails, however, was that you need some speed to actually leave a trail. I suppose you'd see it on takeoff in these conditions, huh?

Did you guys fly in there during the winter months (June-August) when there was no daylight, or was this strictly daylight ops? The C-130 seems to have a greater variety of missions than any other airplane in military history.

I have no idea. One neighbor's response mentioned the possibility of de-icing fluid which brings up the question: are you guys already having winter weather in Seattle?

Even if de-icing operations are in effect, I'd be very surprised if it's possible for any fluid to be shed as "ice balls." Type I and II fluids stream off the aircraft during application and would leave a very thin viscous cover that would be completely gone by takeoff speed. Type IV fluid is thicker and is meant to adhere until some point during the takeoff roll at which point the increased slipstream carries it away. (Type IV is more expensive and is used during moderate to heavy winter precip.)

I'm really curious about what it could be. Do you have any links to an article about this?

Tail strikes are something that happen in the real world too. On takeoff, we rotate at 2-2.5° per second. Much faster than that and you can easily hit the tail. On the 757-300, which is a lengthened version of the standard 757, this is even more critical. On a normal takeoff, the tail will come pretty close to the ground when we rotate (<3 feet, iirc). The 767 actually has a tailskid, protruding from the bottom of the aft fuelage, which is checked on preflight to see if any contact has been made on previous flights (it's painted bright yellow, so any scrape would be obvious). The tailskid retracts when the landing gear is retracted...we don't need extra drag out there.

I could get hit by a truck tomorrow and it might be a 5 minute inconvenience for one of the schedulers. The hole I would leave would be similar to the one you create when you withdraw your hand from a pail of water.

analogy

woxof, yes it was more like a cloud/fog drifting with the prevailing wind. 2 weeks in august with about 4-6 hr daylight window, and from October thru March with 24 hrs daylight. Have enjoyed your thread!

I'm really intrigued by this kind of flying, so I hope you don't mind a few more questions. Where are you flying out of when you go to the Antarctic? Are these just quick turns or have you stayed there any length of time? Is it McMurdo you're flying into, or are there multiple landing sites down there? Are the skis on the landing gear removable in flight or do you takeoff and land on snow at both ends of the flight?

A few questions ...

Is the Boeing 737-700 safe?

I ask because it seems to be involved in a lot of incidents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_..._and_incidents

Is Airtran safe?

Planning on trip to AUA w/family...

I kinda doubt a recent model of the highest selling aircraft in history is somehow unsafe.

This is the most flown passenger airplane in the world. You think eight is a lot of incidents? Worry about what car you drive instead.

airtran = valuejet

I avoid them, but I am more jumpy and irrationally scared of flying than most.

That number is just the next generation version number of incidents, not the total 737 number of incidents. I am very comfortable with the 737 overall.

But 8 seemed a bit high to me for how new it is.

It seems most of those were foreign carriers though.

And the valujet thing also made me a tad nervous, though I know it's a different airline nowl.